52428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Notices 

the Agency’s Web site that can be 

downloaded and printed. This could be 

used by motorcoach companies that 

choose to distribute safety pamphlets to 

passengers during boarding or elect to 

place safety pamphlets in the pouches 

or sleeves on the backs of seats. The 

FMCSA believes that developing and 

distributing a model safety pamphlet for 

motorcoach passengers is the best single 

way to assist motorcoach companies in 

implementing a safety-awareness 

program for passengers. Motorcoach 

companies with modest financial 

resources could make effective use of 

the pamphlet as part of a safetyawareness program for passengers. 

Basic Plan for Motorcoach Passenger 

Safety Awareness 

The following Basic Plan reflects the 

ways FMCSA has responded to the 

recommendations made in the 

comments to the docket. The order of 

the recommended safety topics to be 

covered has been changed to rank the 

topics in order of importance. 

Basic Plan for Motorcoach Passenger 

Safety Awareness 

Recommended Safety Topics To Be 

Covered 

1. Emergency exits—Point out the 

location of all emergency exits (pushout windows, roof vent, and side door) 

and explain how to operate them. 

Emphasize that, whenever feasible, the 

motorcoach door should be the primary 

exit choice. Encourage able-bodied 

passengers to assist any injured or 

mobility-impaired passengers during an 

emergency evacuation. Provide 

passengers with sufficient guidance to 

ensure compliance with 49 CFR 392.62, 

‘‘Safe operation, buses.’’

2. Emergency Contact—Advise 

passengers to call 911 by cellular 

telephone in the event of an emergency. 

3. Driver Direction—Advise 

passengers to look to the driver for 

direction and follow his/her 

instructions. 

4. Fire Extinguisher—Point out the 

location of the fire extinguisher. 

5. Restroom Emergency Push Button 

or Switch—Inform motorcoach 

passengers of the emergency signal 

device in the restroom. 

6. Avoiding Slips and Falls—Warn 

passengers to exercise care when 

boarding and exiting the motorcoach 

and to use the handrail when ascending 

or descending steps. Encourage 

passengers to remain seated as much as 

possible while the motorcoach is in 

motion. If it is necessary to walk while 

the motorcoach is moving, passengers 

should always use handrails and 

supports. 

Various Methods of Presenting the 

Safety Information 

The following presentation methods 

are not an exhaustive list of ways to 

present safety information to 

motorcoach passengers. The list below 

should not be construed to restrict 

combinations of the following methods 

or additional presentation methods. 

1. During passenger boarding—

Informational pamphlets could be 

distributed to motorcoach passengers 

during boarding. 

2. After passenger boarding and 

immediately prior to moving the 

motorcoach—

a. The driver requests the passengers 

to review informational pamphlets 

located in the pouches or sleeves on the 

back of seats. 

b. The driver provides an oral 

presentation (similar to the 

presentations by airline flight attendants 

prior to take-off) with or without 

informational pamphlets as visual aids. 

c. An automated audio presentation 

broadcasts a cassette tape or compact 

disk over the motorcoach audio system. 

d. An automated video presentation 

plays a videotape or DVD on the 

motorcoach video system. 

Timing and Frequency of the 

Presentation 

Demand-responsive motorcoach 

operations, such as charters and tour 

services, should present the safety 

information to motorcoach passengers 

after boarding and prior to movement of 

the motorcoach. 

Fixed route motorcoach service 

operations should present the safety 

information at all major stops or 

terminals, after passenger boarding and 

prior to movement of the motorcoach. 

Policy Review by the Office of 

Management and Budget 

E.O. 12866, as amended. The FMCSA 

has determined that this guidance is not 

significant under the standards 

established by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) on April 25, 2007, 

under E.O. 12866, as amended. This 

publication was not reviewed by the 

OMB. The FMCSA expects the 

voluntary implementation of this 

guidance by the motorcoach industry 

will have annual costs that are 

substantially less than $100 million. 

Significant stakeholders that have been 

active in the development of this 

guidance, including the ABA–BISC and 

UMA, concur with this cost assessment. 

Issued on: September 7, 2007. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–18088 Filed 9–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

BMW 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 

petition for exemption of the Carline 1 

vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard. This petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2008 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, Room 

W43–443, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 22, 2007, BMW 

requested exemption from the partsmaking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the MY 2008 BMW Carline 1 vehicle 

line. The petition requested exemption 

from parts-making pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for an entire 

vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. 

BMW has petitioned the agency to grant 

an exemption for its Carline 1 vehicle 

line beginning with MY 2008. In its 

petition, BMW provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Notices 52429 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for its Carline 1 

vehicle line. BMW will install its 

passive antitheft device as standard 

equipment on the line. Features of the 

antitheft device will include a key with 

a transponder, loop antenna (coil) 

around the steering lock cylinder, an 

electronically-coded vehicle 

immobilizer (EWS) control unit and 

passive immobilizer. BMW’s submission 

is considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. 

BMW stated that the EWS 

immobilizer device prevents the vehicle 

from being driven away under its own 

engine power. The EWS control unit 

provides the interface to the loop 

antenna (coil), engine control unit and 

starter. It queries key data from the 

transponder and provides the coded 

release of the engine management for a 

valid key. The ignition and fuel supply 

are only released when a correct coded 

release signal has been sent by the EWS 

control unit, to allow the vehicle to 

start. The immobilizer device is 

automatically activated when the engine 

is shut off and the vehicle key is 

removed from the ignition lock cylinder. 

The antitheft device can be further 

secured by locking the vehicle doors 

and hood using either the key lock 

cylinder on the driver’s door or the 

remote frequency remote control. The 

frequency for the remote control 

constantly changes to prevent an 

unauthorized person from opening the 

vehicle by intercepting the signals of its 

remote control. The vehicle is also 

equipped with a central-locking system 

that can be operated to lock and unlock 

all doors or to unlock only the driver’s 

door, preventing forced entry into the 

vehicle through the passenger doors. 

BMW stated that the proposed 

antitheft device does not provide any 

visible or audible indication of 

unauthorized entry. Theft data have 

indicated a decline in theft rates for 

vehicle lines that have been equipped 

with antitheft devices similar to that 

which BMW proposes to install on the 

Carline 1 line. The agency has 

concluded that the lack of a visual or 

audio alarm has not prevented these 

devices from being effective protection 

against theft. 

The effectiveness of BMW’s EWS is 

compared with devices which NHTSA 

has previously determined to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as would 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. The antitheft 

device that VMW intends to install on 

its Carline 1 vehicle line for MY 2008 

is the same system that BMW installed 

on its BMW X3 vehicle line, X5, Carline 

4, Carline 5, Carline 6, Carline 7, Carline 

Z4, and the MINI vehicle line. To 

further substantiate its device’s 

effectiveness, BMW also submitted the 

April 1997 Highway Loss Data 

Institute’s (HLDI) Bulletin on the 

preliminary results of antitheft devices 

in 1995 BMW models. BMW stated that 

the data demonstrates the performance 

of the BMW antitheft device when it 

was introduced in the 5 series vehicle 

line and is indicative of the performance 

it expects from any BMW antitheft 

device. The report compared BMWs 

equipped with an advanced passive 

antitheft devices installed in 1995 BMW 

models (i.e., passive activation with an 

electronic chip in the ignition key that 

must match the vehicle electronics) 

beginning with the January 1, 1995 

production to the vehicle produced 

earlier in the model year that were 

equipped with less advanced antitheft 

technology (i.e., required arming the 

device by a special locking routine and 

had no electronic-key feature). 

According to BMW, HLDI reported 

significant decreases were found in both 

claim frequencies and average loss 

payment per claim for the BMW cars 

equipped with the new antitheft device. 

Specifically, HLDI’s Bulletin showed a 

73% decrease in relative claim 

frequency for BMW vehicle lines 

equipped with the new antitheft device 

as compared to the older device and a 

78% decrease in relative average loss 

payment per claim when the vehicle 

line became equipped with the new 

device. Additionally, the agency notes 

that the most currently available theft 

data for BMW vehicle lines for which 

the agency has granted parts marking 

exemptions show that theft rates for 

these lines are all below the median 

(3.5826) and have remained so for the 

past three years. BMW has concluded 

that the antitheft device proposed for 

the Carline 1 vehicle line is no less 

effective than those devices and similar 

for which NHTSA has already been 

granted exemptions from the partsmarking requirements. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, BMW provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its device. To ensure 

reliability and durability of the device 

BMW conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards and believes that the 

device is reliable and durable since the 

device complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. BMW 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted. BMW also stated that 

because the EWS immobilizer device is 

incorporated into the ignition, fuel 

injection, and starter circuit of the 

vehicle and is activated passively, 

reliability and durability of the system 

have to be ensured because the vehicle 

will not start if the EWS system 

malfunctions. BMW further stated that, 

if a malfunction should occur, the EWS 

device incorporates a microprocessor 

that can be accessed by using BMW 

diagnostic equipment to diagnose and 

correct the cause of the problem. 

Additionally, the mechanical keys are 

unique. A special key blank, a special 

key cutting machine and the car’s 

unique code are needed to duplicate a 

key. BMW stated that new keys will 

only be issued to authorized persons. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

BMW, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the BMW Carline 1 

vehicle line is likely to be as effective 

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). 

Based on the information BMW has 

provided about its device, the agency 

concludes that the device will provide 

four of the five types of performance 

listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting 

activation; preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 

49 CFR part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the 

agency finds that BMW has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will reduce and deter 

theft. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full BMW’s petition for 

exemption for the Carline 1 vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 

49 CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, 

identifies those lines that are exempted 

from the Theft Prevention Standard for 

a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) 

contains publication requirements 

incident to the disposition of all Part 

543 petitions. Advanced listing, 

including the release of future product 

nameplates, the beginning model year 

for which the petition is granted and a 

general description of the antitheft 

device is necessary in order to notify 

law enforcement agencies of new 

vehicle lines exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If BMW decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency. If such a decision is 

made, the line must be fully marked as 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
52430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Notices 

1Applicants also seek exemptions from 49 U.S.C. 

10904 (offer of financial assistance procedures) and 

49 U.S.C. 10905 (public use conditions). These 

requests will be addressed in the final decision. 

required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 

541.6 (marking of major component 

parts and replacement parts). 

NHTS notes that if BMW wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) 

states that a Part 543 exemption applies 

only to vehicles that belong to a line 

exempted under this part and equipped 

with the anti-theft device on which the 

line’s exemption is based. Further, 

§ 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission 

of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to 

permit the use of an antitheft device 

similar to but differing from the one 

specified in that exemption.’’

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that Part 

543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend Part 543 to 

require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the 

components or design of an antitheft 

device. The significance of many such 

changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if the 

manufacturer contemplates making any 

changes the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: September 7, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 07–4501 Filed 9–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–103 (Sub–No. 21X); 

STB Docket No. AB–1016X] 

The Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company—Abandonment Exemption—

Line in Warren County, MS; Vicksburg 

Southern Railroad, Inc.—

Discontinuance of Service 

Exemption—Line in Warren County, 

MS 

On August 24, 2007, The Kansas City 

Southern Railway Company (KCSR) and 

Vicksburg Southern Railroad, Inc. 

(VSOR), jointly filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) a petition 

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption 

from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903.1

KCSR seeks to abandon and VSOR seeks 

to discontinue service over 

approximately 4.25 miles of rail line in 

the City of Vicksburg, in Warren 

County, MS. The line is referred to 

alternatively as the Vicksburg Industrial 

Lead, South Redwood Branch, or 

Redwood Branch, and extends from 

milepost 225.6 (south of the Line’s 

crossing of Warrenton Road and the 

intersection with Kemp Bottom Road) to 

milepost 229.85 (approximately 0.05 

miles south of the Line’s crossing of 

Glass Road, just beyond the city limits 

of Vicksburg). The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Code 39180 

and includes the station of Cedars 

(milepost 227.2). 

The line does not contain federally 

granted rights-of-way. Any 

documentation in KCSR’s or VSOR’s 

possession will be made available 

promptly to those requesting it. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuance of this notice, the Board 

is instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by December 12, 

2007. 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will 

be due no later than 10 days after 

service of a decision granting the 

petition for exemption. Each offer must 

be accompanied by a $1,300 filing fee. 

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). 

All interested persons should be 

aware that, following abandonment of 

rail service and salvage of the line, the 

line may be suitable for other public 

use, including interim trail use. Any 

request for a public use condition under 

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail 

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be 

due no later than October 3, 2007. Each 

trail use request must be accompanied 

by a $200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(27). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket Nos. AB–103 

(Sub–No. 21X) and AB–1016X and must 

be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation 

Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001; and (2) William A. 

Mullins, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037, 

and Craig Richey, 315 W. 3rd Street, 

Pittsburg, KS 66762. Replies to the 

petition are due on or before October 3, 

2007. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning abandonment procedures 

may contact the Board’s Office of Public 

Services at (202) 245–0230 or refer to 

the full abandonment or discontinuance 

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. 

Questions concerning environmental 

issues may be directed to the Board’s 

Section of Environmental Analysis 

(SEA) at (202) 245–0305. [Assistance for 

the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] 

An environmental assessment (EA) (or 

environmental impact statement (EIS), if 

necessary), prepared by SEA will be 

served upon all parties of record and 

upon any agencies or other persons who 

commented during its preparation. 

Other interested persons may contact 

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). 

EAs in these abandonment proceedings 

normally will be made available within 

60 days of the filing of the petition. The 

deadline for submission of comments on 

the EA will generally be within 30 days 

of its service. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: August 31, 2007. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–17674 Filed 9–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

September 7, 2007. 

The Department of Treasury has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requirement(s) to 

OMB for review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

Dates: Written comments should be 

received on or before October 15, 2007 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–0904. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: INTL–45–86 (Final) TD 8125 

Foreign Management and Foreign 

Economic Processes Requirements of a 

Foreign Sale Corporation. 

Description: The regulations provide 

rules for complying with foreign 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES